Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
it often doesn't work out that way. in fact from kennedy to reagan to clinton to w. bush lower tax rates frequently increased tax revenues, particularly at the upper end of the income stream. so here now to discuss this we have cnbc contributor keith boykin a former clinton white house aide and forbes media chairman steve forbes author of freedom manifesto, why free markets are moral and big government is not. love that. hey steve and keith. keith boykin i'll give you a little supply side. you'll hate this. this couples from the irs. the irs is going to use the bush cut, the dreaded bush tax cuts. the richest 1% paid $84 billion inflation adjusted dollars more between 2000 and 2007. that's a rise of 23%. in other words, their tax rates went down. and their tax revenues went up. now, isn't mr. obama making a mistake? >> well, the rich are paying more in taxes because the rich are disproportionately receiving most of the income in this country. the reality, larry, is that in my lifetime we've actually only raised income tax rates three times. once in 1969 to pay for the vietnam war. once i
hillary clinton accepted the concept that every time we've raised capital gains tax, the receipts from that have gone down. every time we've lowered it, they've gone up. he accepted that. i want to know if his opinion is modified or is he considering laying off tax and business investment for fear that it will give us less of it. >> two very interesting questions there about what effect a change in taxes does to behavior. i think you can't deny the fact that it does change behavior. is there right. it is very complicated math. when they start saying it is math, it is really complicated math. you show me someone who can do that study -- >> it goes back to that idea, you raise a tax on something, you'll get less of it! >> no doubt about it. >> jim iuorio, thank you. >>> reminder -- do not miss steve leisman's exclusive interview with treasury secretary tim geithner. there won't be many more of these because mr. geithner has signaled he will be leaving. it is at 4:00 p.m. today eastern time. key man, the point man, on the administration side in the fiscal cliff negotiations. >>> bertha co
it be a 37% number? >> what we've proposed is to let the rates go back to the clinton era, which was a very good time. we think that's the mix. we think that makes the most sense. as i've said before, i'm very skeptical. there's a different way to do it that works economically. >> just as i understand it, not raising rates on the wealthy is something that you would be prepared to go all the way on in terms of going over the cliff. if the 39.6 number -- >> let me say it differently. congress needs to extends those tax cuts for all americans. they need to make sure no american who makes up to $250,000 a year is seeing their taxes go up. that's the most important thing people can do. remember, our obligation is first do no harm. we need to lift that threat over the economy. as part of that, along side that, we'd like to put in place, as i said, a carefully designed balance of reforms to put us on a path to sustainability. as long as there's recognition on the other side that those rates are going to go up at the end of this year, then we think we can reach an agreement on a set of reforms, as
. >> and harry reid named a number today. 38.5%. >> they talk about the clinton tax rates and say how good the economy was under the clinton years, but it's not entirely clear that raising taxes is going to create a great economy this time around. >> thank you so much. we go from party line to the front lines on the impact of the fiscal cliff's mess. fedex ceo fred smith was among the ceos who met with the president yesterday. he's been outspoken on the issue of corporate taxes as well as jobs, making headlines saying it's a myth that raising tax rates will kill jobs. let's talk with fred smith right now in a cnbc exclusive about that and more. frank, good to have you on the program. welcome back. >> thank you very much, maria. always good to be here. >> good to see you again. let's start with the fiscal cliff issue. when it comes to higher taxes, you seem to disagree with house speaker boehner when he says raising taxes on the highest earners will hurt jobs. can you elaborate on that? >> i think what the speaker is saying quite correctly is you don't want to increase taxes on the job crea
to the clinton era rates is, we're going to do -- >> you might not get the benefit if you don't do anything to the deficit you're talking ten times the revenue if you go below the 98%. you can't return to clinton prosperity only raising taxes on 2%. it's different for all taxpayers. am i right? >> you're almost entirely wrong. >> why would raising just on the 2% get us back to the clinton prosperity you're talking about? we can't return to the spending levels either. >> getting to a sound fiscal position is necessary to protect the economy. if we don't do that, as this economy recovers, that recovery is going to be aborted and that's going to do damage. then the question is how you get there, and the president believes that we should raise revenues with a tax system that has been proven in the past to go along with very substantial -- >> you can't conflate the two. you have the entire -- >> joe, joe, if you go back to this, i'm not sure what you're arguing. >> raising on 2% is different than the other structure. >> the reason it's different is that the tax rate on everybody else is going to
of president clinton's former chief of staff. since then there's been no counteroffer from the white house. instead, reports indicate that the president has adopted a deliberate strategy to slow-walk our economy right to the edge of the fiscal cliff. >> reporter: not surprisingly, democratic house leader nancy pelosi had precisely the opposite explanation for what is behind this stalemate. she says republicans simply echoing the white house are going to have to buckle on the issue of the top rates. >> the only obstacle standing in the way of middle income tax relief are the republicans unwillingness to ask the top 2% to pay their fair share. >> but tyler, as you suggested, this is all a work in progress. the thing we cannot see that is not visible to the public or to the press is what's going on behind the scenes. staff discussions resumed yesterday. don't know how fruitful. i haven't gotten much of a signal from people on either side that a deal is close, but they're work rg at it and sometimes these situations can turn around quickly. >> john, what of the reports today that perhaps at so
these generalities. they'll close loopholes. it's a simple question, as president clinton said, of arithmetic. arithmetic. you can't get from here to there unless you raise the rates. >> so guys, that's where we are as of this morning, and now what everyone's waiting for is which side will make a concrete proposal here that actually includes some concessions? back to you. >> joining us from washington, d.c., jake sherman, congressional reporter for politico. who is going to make some honest concessions first? >> what eamon said is absolutely right. this comes down to one thing, whether republicans are willing to raise marginal income tax rates on americans. they're saying they're willing to raise revenue, but president obama has one criteria in this debate and that's raising income rates on all americans. right now, the sides are in their two corners on this and nobody is moving. so we're really only a couple weeks out and there's this huge gap, and eamon was right in another aspect. there is this brush fire of conservative lawmakers who don't want to raise revenue at all. so this is a huge p
is what has to happen, all right? the president needs to take a page out of president bill clinton -- >> he's in philadelphia with the middle class behind him and nodding and saying, i've got a pen, i've got a pen. i've still got a pen, i've still got a pen. >> president obama owes president clinton a great deal for helping him get elected. number one, we need a meaningful citizen education engagement effort with the white house in formada, next year to build the case for a grand bargain. the official version of what i did and what my colleagues did over the last several months and we need congressional hearings that will set the stage for tax reforms, social security reform and the president needs to negotiate privately and have discussions with congressional leaders of both parties privately. those three things can get us to the promt promise land. and without all three of those, we're in trouble. >> but, david, that is exactly what was supposed to happen between july of 2011 and today. and guess what? none of it has happened. none of it. we're having the same conversation. >> yo
for progressives, just to do it. to go back to the clinton era rates. you get rid of three quarters of the deficit just on tax increases at that point. >> and he says you get defense cuts. >> you can't get defense cuts any other way. and he's not the only one. there's a lot of people on the left and there's quite a few people on the right. i'm glad you're optimistic and a lot of ceos and guys in your position -- if you run a company, you don't need consumers petrified and business people petrified. this is the last thing we need if you run a company. i understand you have a horse in the game. >> but you also have the double trigger. if you go over the cliff, we've got the debt ceiling fight right afterwards. it's not like that's six months down the line. that's in if first month, six weeks of the new year. >> the other thing, depending on where you stand, the idea that we just get rid of congressional approval of the debt ceiling at all, which is that ludicrous proposal that was in the president's plan. that's not -- and would you really want that? would you really want not having any more oversig
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)